The attempted assassination of George Wallace

[Parallax]

On May 15, 1972, Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama was campaigning for the presidency at a rally in Laurel, Maryland, when Arthur Bremer shot him five times. Amazingly, Wallace survived, but his campaign was over. For the rest of his life, he would remain an invalid, a result of a bullet that had severed his spinal cord.

The next day, Wallace won both the Maryland and Michigan primaries. Two months earlier, he had won the Florida primary, winning every county there. He had also placed second in the Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Oregon primaries. All these states (with the technical exceptions of Maryland and Florida) were northern states.

Four years earlier, Wallace had run for president on the American Independent Party ticket. His strategy was to win enough states to deny both Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon the required number of electoral votes to become president, and throw the election to the US House of Representatives. The strategy almost worked, as Wallace won all the Deep South states -- the last 3rd party candidate, to date, to win electoral votes in a presidential election.

In 1972, Wallace once again ran for president, but this time as a Democrat. He also was winning votes not only in the south, but also in the north. Despite the news media's depiction of him as a redneck segregationist, he was no fringe candidate.

As long as his popularity was confined in the south, he could easily be dismissed. In 1972, his popularity in the north was such that he could no longer be dismissed. He had become a major thorn in the side of the Democratic Party, and to the PTB. And that is why he was shot.

[Parallax]

Up until the 1960s, the Democratic Party represented the blue-collar white man -- the so-called "little guy." With the election of JFK and LBJ, and particularly after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic Party began to shed its white working man image, and expanded its base to include blacks, women, homosexuals, and anti-war activists. Suddenly, anyone with a chip on his (or her) shoulder became "little guys," fighting for a slice of the pie. And the Democratic Party was only too happy to embrace them.

Wallace was a throwback to the traditional image of the pre-1960's Democratic Party: white, working class, socially traditional, and male. As he began racking up votes in northern states, it became clear that he was no regional phenomenon. His appeal was national. He had become another headache, just like RFK had been four years earlier. And like RFK, Wallace had to removed by any means necessary.

[Parallax]

George Wallace was shot only four years after Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Like RFK, Wallace was a Democrat, running against establishment candidates for the presidency. And like RFK, Wallace was shot at a moment of triumph.

Of course, Wallace wouldn't have won his party's nomination, even if he hadn't been shot. But Wallace was a threat anyway to the Democratic Party, which was beginning to expand its base to include blacks (and other racial minorities), feminists, homosexuals, anti-war activists... IOW those who would naturally be hostile to the party's traditional base of socially conservative, working class whites.

Wallace had great populist appeal that extended far beyond his native Alabama. Discarding his earlier segregationist rhetoric, he ran on an anti-busing, anti-big government platform, which was a hit with voters nationwide, especially in the years right after the Great Society.

Those behind the scenes well understood the threat posed by George Wallace. For the next election cycle, they recruited a governor from the Deep South to run for president. He would appeal to whites (northern and southern), but without the traditional populism espoused by Wallace. He would also appeal to the new base of blacks and social liberals. His name was Jimmy Carter, and he ably neutralized the George Wallace threat, winning the presidency in 1976.

[Parallax]

Here is a video of George Wallace discussing state's rights back in 1967. He was never the same after his near-assassination, but before then, he was an articulate spokesman for state's rights. He knew the tyranny that resulted from liberalism and progressivism, and courageously fought against it.